National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1458
28/05/2026
Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment Bill
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the NDIS Amendment Bill.
I am a senior clinician working within the disability sector with over 15 years’ experience as a speech pathologist, currently employed by a small private practice that is a registered NDIS provider.
I am making this submission because I am deeply concerned about the practical impact the proposed changes within the NDIS will have on people with disability, their families, and the clinicians who support them.
While I understand the importance of ensuring the sustainability of the NDIS, sustainability cannot be achieved by making access harder, narrowing eligibility through administrative definitions, or reducing real-world supports that people rely on to participate in everyday life.
What the NDIS means in real life
In my clinical experience, the NDIS is not just a funding scheme. It is the difference between isolation and participation.
It is the difference between a child attending school or being unable to cope in the classroom. It is the difference between a family being able to leave the house safely or being confined to crisis management at home. It is the difference between an adult participating in work and community life or withdrawing due to communication, cognitive, or mental health barriers.
When supports are in place, people grow in independence, safety, confidence, and connection. When supports are reduced or delayed, families often experience increased stress, escalation of behaviours of concern, reduced participation, and in some cases crisis system involvement.
Proposed changes to “permanence” and what they mean in practice
One of the most significant proposed changes in the Bill relates to how the NDIA defines “permanence” of disability.
As I understand it, the proposed changes may require people to demonstrate that they have undertaken all available treatments before being considered eligible for the NDIS. Importantly, “available” treatments may still be considered relevant even when they are unaffordable, not accessible in a person’s area, or not realistically obtainable.
In practice, this raises serious concerns.
It places an unrealistic burden on people with disability and their families to exhaust every possible treatment option before receiving support. It also raises questions about what is considered “appropriate,” who makes that decision, and whether people will be pressured into interventions that are not suitable, not culturally safe, or not aligned with best practice.
Disability does not become less real because a treatment exists somewhere in theory.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1458
A child with severe communication impairment does not become less disabled because an intervention is theoretically available but not accessible. An adult with acquired communication disability does not regain functional independence because they have been asked to “try everything” before receiving support.
From a clinical perspective, this approach risks delaying essential supports that are often required early to prevent escalation, secondary disability, and long-term disadvantage.
What these changes would mean in real life
If these changes to permanence and eligibility thresholds are implemented, I am concerned about what this will mean for people I support clinically.
It will likely mean:
• longer delays in accessing essential supports
• increased pressure on families to demonstrate exhaustion of treatments
• people being required to pursue interventions that may not be appropriate or accessible
• increased deterioration in functioning while people wait for eligibility decisions
• greater inequity between those who can navigate systems and those who cannot
For many families, the practical reality is that they are already managing complex disability-related needs every day. Adding additional administrative and clinical hurdles does not reduce need — it delays support until crisis occurs.
“Mild” and “moderate” disability still has significant functional impact
Another concern is the way reforms may rely more heavily on severity labels such as “mild” or “moderate” disability when making funding and eligibility decisions.
In clinical practice, these labels often do not reflect functional reality.
For example, a child may be described as having moderate language impairment, yet be unable to:
• understand instructions in real time
• communicate needs under stress
• maintain peer relationships
• recognise unsafe situations
• participate consistently in school
Similarly, an adult may be described as having mild communication impairment but still experience significant breakdowns in work, social participation, and independent living under cognitive or communicative load.
These are not minor impacts. They affect safety, participation, independence, and wellbeing.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1458
The risk of policy relying on severity labels is that people with significant functional needs may be excluded simply because their disability is not classified as “severe enough.”
Functional capacity cannot be captured in a single assessment
Functional capacity is not fixed. It changes depending on environment, stress, fatigue, sensory load, communication demands, and supports available.
Many people can appear more capable in structured assessment settings than they are in everyday life. Others may mask or compensate temporarily, especially children and autistic individuals.
A short assessment cannot reliably capture:
• what happens at home after school
• what happens when routines break down
• what happens in unfamiliar environments
• what happens under communication or emotional pressure
In clinical practice, these are often the moments when disability has the greatest impact on safety and participation.
Risk of reduced provider choice and continuity of care
I am also concerned that current policy direction and procurement approaches may unintentionally reduce provider diversity and limit the role of private practitioners in delivering NDIS supports.
For example, recent expressions of interest processes and commissioning models in some jurisdictions appear to favour larger organisations or not-for-profit providers.
If this trend continues, it risks reducing participant choice and forcing people to move away from clinicians they know and trust.
This is particularly significant for people with disability who:
• experience high anxiety
• have trauma histories
• require predictable routines and trusted relationships
• take significant time to build therapeutic rapport
In my clinical experience, trust and continuity are not optional. They are central to effective intervention. For many people, it can take months or even years to build the therapeutic relationship required for meaningful progress.
Frequent provider changes or forced transitions can disrupt progress, increase distress, and reduce engagement.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1458
Before the introduction of the NDIS, many early intervention services were limited in age range and availability. Families often “aged out” of support systems and were left without consistent allied health input.
The NDIS created a system that enabled ongoing, consistent support across the lifespan. It gave families hope that intervention could continue beyond early childhood and into adolescence and adulthood.
It is important that current reforms do not unintentionally reverse this progress by reducing provider choice or continuity.
What happens if supports are reduced or removed
If social, community, or capacity-building supports are reduced or removed, the impact is not simply reduced service use.
In my clinical experience, the likely outcomes include:
• increased family stress and burnout
• reduced participation in education and community life
• increased behavioural distress and crisis presentations
• increased reliance on emergency and statutory systems
• reduced independence over time rather than increased independence
Supports are not just assistance with daily life. They are what prevent escalation and enable participation.
Clinical perspective
Across my professional experience as a speech pathologist, I have consistently observed that early and appropriate support reduces long-term harm and system reliance.
When people receive timely supports, they are more likely to:
• participate in education and employment
• build communication and independence skills
• maintain family stability
• avoid crisis escalation
When supports are delayed or reduced, outcomes often worsen and costs shift into other systems such as health, education, and child protection.
Support should therefore be understood not as a cost burden, but as early intervention that prevents greater long-term disadvantage.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1458
Recommendations
I respectfully recommend that the Committee ensure:
-
Eligibility and funding decisions are based on functional impact, not severity labels alone.
-
Changes to permanence do not require people to exhaust all theoretically available treatments, particularly when they are inaccessible, unaffordable, or inappropriate.
-
Functional assessments reflect real-world functioning across environments, not brief or isolated observations.
-
Participant choice and provider diversity are protected, including the continued meaningful role of private practitioners.
-
Continuity of care and therapeutic relationships are recognised as clinically essential for many participants.
-
Reforms do not unintentionally increase reliance on informal supports without adequate recognition of family capacity limits.
-
Any system changes are assessed for their impact across health, education, and child protection systems, not just NDIS expenditure.
Conclusion
The NDIS has provided people with disability and their families with something that was previously unavailable: consistent access to supports that enable participation, safety, and development.
The proposed changes, particularly around permanence and eligibility, risk shifting the system away from functional need and towards administrative thresholds that do not reflect lived reality.
In practice, this may delay or reduce access to essential supports, increase pressure on families, and reduce provider continuity and choice.
A sustainable NDIS is one that recognises functional need early, provides appropriate support, and prevents escalation into crisis — not one that delays support until all other options have been exhausted.
Yours sincerely,